Date: January, 14 2022

PLAGIARISM SCAN REPORT

0% 100% 942 5430

Plagiarised Unique Words Characters

Excluded Url : None

Content Checked For Plagiarism

: If a person engages in illegal behaviour that causes harm to another person, he is liable and must pay damages or compensation.
compensate the defendant/victim of such a conduct with some alternative remedy or compensation as the Court determinesBut what if a
person (victim) is ineligible to sue for damages after suffering a loss or injury as a result of another person's actions? This is owing to the
tort defences provided by the law. The defence "volenti non fit injuria" is one of several available to the defendant in Tort Law by which he
or she might avoid liability. Origin: The phrase 'Volenti non fit injuria' was coined by Roman jurist Ulpian and originally read as
Nullainiuriaest, quoe in volentem fiat. This adage was based on the idea of estoppels, which was initially applied to Roman citizens who
agreed to be sold as slaves. Let's see what we mean. example, 1. In a cricket match, if a player ‘A’ got injury by the ball hit by the batsman
‘B’ then ‘A’ cannot claim damages for his injury due to the defence to tort ‘Volunti non fit injuria’ because the player ‘A’ is known to the
consequences of playing that game. 2. Mr. A, Dr. B's patient, had surgery, and as a result of Dr. B's operation on Mr. A, he is unable to sue
Dr. B because Mr. A has given his unequivocal agreement to this act. keep an eye out for This means that if someone grants his agreement
to do anything that causes them harm, even if the harm is committed by another person, they will be unable to sue that person for damages
because the act was one to which they voluntarily consented. The plaintiff's permission plays an important part as a defence, and this
defence is called as "volenti non fit injuria," which indicates that no injury occurs to a willing individual. Volenti non fit injuria elements: To
use the Volenti Non Fit Injuria defence, you must have: The plaintiff's consent must be free: The plaintiff's permission is essential for the
defendant to employ the defence of volenti non fit injuria since the defendant can only use this defence if the plaintiff voluntarily consents to
an act. In other words we can say that if plaintiff gives his/her consent for an act such consent should be free from any coercion, by mean of
fraud or by any other kind of such means by way of which the free consent can be affected. If the person (Plaintiff) does not freely consent,
the defendant cannot utilise this defence to avoid accountability, and he will be held accountable for the damages caused. Consent not to
be obtained by fraud: In the case of authorization obtained through fraud, the defence of Volenti non fit injuria will not apply, and the
defendant will be held responsible for the act performed by him. In R V. Williams (193), the defendant was a singing coach who gained a 16-
year-old student's consent to have sexual intercourse with him by falsely stating that it would help her develop her voice and singing.
Because the permission was obtained by deception, the singing coach was found guilty in this case. Mere knowledge does not mean to
consent: It is known as Scienti non fit injuria, and it states that simply knowing about the risk is insufficient to benefit from this defence. It
indicates that simply being aware of a risk does not imply permission to it. Thus, knowing or being aware of the risk is merely one of the
requirements for applying the principle of "volenti non fit injuria." • To successfully defend the volenti non fit injuria defence, it is necessary
that I the plaintiff be aware of the risk, (ii) he be cognizant of the consequences, and (iii) he accept to bear the injury. • The mere fulfilment
of the first requirement does not guarantee a successful defence, just as knowledge does not guarantee agreement. Let’s try to understand
with help of case of Smit vs. Baker & sons, (1891) AC 325, the plaintiff was an employee working for the defendant for cutting the rock
through a drill. The working of the person was at same place from where stones were being conveyed from one place to another place. The
plaintiff is injured because when stone fell over his head during working hours. As a response, he files a suit against defendant. The
defendant entered the plea and indicated in front of the Court that the plaintiff was aware of the risk involved in the work and, as a result,
pleaded the position of "volenti non fit injuria.". During the Court hearings, the Court determined that the defence failed since there was just
knowledge of the threat, not assumption of it, and therefore the claim was upheld. Burden of proof: If the defendant wishes to assert the
defence of "volenti non fit injuria," the defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff was fully aware of the act and willingly consented to the
danger inherent in the act. Only the defendant can assert this defence if the defendant can show that the plaintiff was likewise aware of the
magnitude of the risk involved in the act. Example: A must have surgery to treat an eye infection, but the doctor fails to notify him of the
possibility of losing his vision as a result of the procedure. As a result, A consents to the surgery, assuming that there is no risk to his sight.
If A loses his vision as a result of this operation, the doctor will be held accountable due to the doctor's failure to warn A about the risks
involved in the procedure. As a result, the defence of "volenti non-fit injuria" is ineffective.